Abstract
This study aimed to quantify the height of the mandibular condyle and ramus, condylar volume, and the asymmetry index in adult patients of different sex, skeletal class and vertical pattern using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), and to determine whether there were differences between these groups. The study used CBCT scans of 159 patients with a mean age of 32.32 ± 8.31 years. InVivoDental® software was used to perform both linear (condylar, ramal, and total height) and condylar volume measurements. Linear and volumetric asymmetries were calculated. There were not significant differences between right and left sides. The mean value obtained for condyle height was 7.27 mm, ramus height 42.3 mm, total height 49.6 mm and condyle volume 1907.1 mm3, with significant differences between men and women. Significantly higher values were found for condylar volume in hypodivergent patterns (p = 0.001) and for the asymmetry index of the condylar volume in Class II patients (p < 0.05). The prevalence of relevant asymmetry was high for condyle height and volume (73.1% y 75.6% respectively). Higher height and volume values were found among men, Class III, and hypodivergent patients. Linear and volumetric asymmetries were more prevalent among men, Class III and hyperdivergent patterns.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Introduction
Mandibular asymmetry has been described as dimensional differences in size, form, and volume of the left and right side of the mandible1, which can be the cause of aesthetic and functional problems2.
Different techniques including clinical examination, photography, and radiography have been used to assess mandibular asymmetry3,4. Traditionally, the most commonly used have been two-dimensional (2D) radiographs, including posteroanterior (PA) cephalograms5,6, submentovertex7 and panoramic radiographs1,8,9,10,11.
In order to measure mandibular asymmetries quantitatively from panoramic radiographs, various techniques have been proposed, Habets’12 and Kjellberg’s13 methods being the most frequently used. The method proposed by Habets et al.12 is considered a reliable method for quantitatively assessing vertical mandibular asymmetry. According to these authors, asymmetry index values higher than 3% on panoramic images may be referred to as mandibular asymmetry12.
The associations between mandibular asymmetry and different factors such as TMDs6,14, posterior crossbite8,10,15, cleft lip and palate16,17,18 and different occlusion patterns2,7,17,18,19,20,21,22 have been evaluated in several studies using Habets’ method12.
Panoramic radiographs present some vertical magnification and other distortion problems derived from projection geometry, which can lead to inaccurate evaluations and limit their diagnostic usefulness23. It has been noted that the reproducibility of vertical measures and angles will be acceptable providing the head is positioned correctly when taking x-rays. Habets et al.12 only considered asymmetries relevant when the asymmetry index was higher than 3%, which was associated with a 6% difference between sides when measured on panoramic radiographs.
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) is an accurate and reliable method for assessing craniofacial structures24,25, providing a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of anatomical structures with high resolution and no magnification26. Lim et al. compared the mandibular asymmetry index using panoramic radiography and CBCT finding low reliability and validity for panoramic radiographs, thus recommending CBCT27. Only one published study has evaluated condylar and ramal vertical asymmetries using CBCT in patients with different vertical growth patterns but with normal, Class I sagittal skeletal patterns28. Meanwhile, volumetric measurements of the jaw and the mandibular condyle have been reported in CBCT images of Caucasian patients29,30 and in patients with juvenile arthritis31. Only one study has described volume according to the vertical and anteroposterior skeletal pattern (in a Japanese population) but without taking into account the symmetry or asymmetry that subjects presented32.
The aims of this study were firstly, to quantify the height of the mandibular ramus and condyle, condylar volume and the asymmetry index in adult patients of different sex, skeletal class and vertical pattern using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), and secondly, to determine whether there were differences between these groups.
Materials and Methods
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects at the University of Valencia, Spain (H1465893129760). Rights were protected by the Institutional Review Board. All subjects gave their informed consent to take part in the study. Any data that might disclose the identity of the participants have been omitted. This study was designed following guidelines established in the Helsinki declaration and the STROBE statement33.
Sample
CBCT scans of patients attending the orthodontic clinic at the University of Valencia (Spain) between January 2015 and March 2017 were obtained from the clinic’s archives. All CBCT scans were taken for diagnostic reasons relating to dental treatment, so the patients did not receive any additional radiation for the purpose of the present study. A total of 195 patient’s records were selected by VPG and LVM. After receiving information about the study, a total of 189 patients were willing to take part. Six patients did not wish to participate for personal reasons. The positive response rate was 96.9%. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
All CBCT scans were taken using a Planmeca Promax 3D imaging device (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) and included images of the complete skull (field of view 20 × 19 cm) with a voxel size of 0.4 mm. The scans were taken with the patient’s head in its natural position and the lips and tongue in the resting position.
Inclusion criteria were:
-
1.
Patients who were to undergo any dental treatment;
-
2.
Patients with a CBCT as part of their general dental records taken before the patient underwent any treatment;
-
3.
Caucasian patients;
-
4.
Patients with all dentition present from first lower molar to first lower molar on the contralateral side;
-
5.
Patients older than 25 years, no longer in mandibular growth.
Exclusion criteria were:
-
1.
Patients with any craniofacial anomalies or syndromes;
-
2.
Patients with antecedents of any kind of trauma to the mandible;
-
3.
Patients with presence of any type of cross-bite and/or mandibular functional shifting caused by occlusal interferences;
-
4.
Patients with presence of any type of temporomandibular disorder (TMD).
Power analysis showed that a sample size of 159 patients would provide an 80% probability of detecting a medium effect (f = 0.25) for differences in the asymmetry index between skeletal classes or vertical patterns using an ANOVA model at a confidence level of 95%.
Methods
Lateral cephalogram radiographs were extracted from the CBCT images using Dolphin Imaging software in order to classify the patients according to the following parameters:
-
1.
Anteroposterior skeletal class (I, II or III). Steiner ANB angle was used to classify patients by skeletal Class: Class I presenting values of 2 ± 2°; Class II presenting values >4°, and Class III presenting values < 0°34.
-
2.
Vertical pattern: this refers to the vertical position of the mandible with respect to the cranial base: hypodivergent, normal, hyperdivergent. This was determined by Ricketts XY axis angle35 (Normal = 90 ± 3°; Hyperdivergent <87°; Hypodivergent >93°).
CBCT images were imported from the software InVivoDental® 5.1 (Anatomage®, San Jose, California, USA) and both linear and volumetric measurements were performed.
Linear measurements (CH, RH and CH + RH)
Condylar (CH), ramal (RH) and total (condylar plus ramal height; CH + RH) were measured on both sides of each mandible using Habets’ method12 as shown in Fig. 1. The most posterior points of the condyle and ramus were marked (O1 and O2) and a line was drawn through them (A-line). Another line, (B-line) was drawn from the most superior point of the condyle perpendicular to the A-line. Firstly, the distance between point O1 and the intersection point of A and B lines was measured, representing condylar height (CH). Secondly, the distance between O1 and O2 representing ramal height (RH). Lastly, the distance between point O2 and the intersection point of A and B lines was measured, representing total height (CH + RH). Vertical mandibular asymmetry indexes of the condyle, ramus, and condyle plus ramus were calculated using the formula developed by Habets et al.12: Asymmetry index (%): [(Right − Left)/(Right + Left)] × 100.
Volumetric measurements (CVol)
Condylar volume (CVol), comprising the head and neck of the condyle, was measured as follows: on the sagittal view, the condylar area was delimited by identifying the lowest point of the sigmoid notch and a line was drawn through it, parallel to the Frankfort plane, which was constructed separately for each side by identifying right and left Porion and Orbitale points. The delimited condylar structure was isolated from the rest of the image using the software’s cropping tool. The threshold value was set based on the best visualization of the structure.
The volume-measuring tool was used to determine the volume of the isolated structure in mm3 (Fig. 2). The same formula used to determine the vertical asymmetry of the mandible was applied to estimate condylar volume asymmetry: [(Right − Left)/(Right + Left)] × 100. Only asymmetries over 3% were considered to be relevant in accordance with the threshold value established by Habets et al.12.
Statistical analysis
To calculate intra-observer reproducibility, the same observer (LM) repeated measurements of 100 CBCTs, with a 1-week period between the first and second measurements. Inter-observer reproducibility was evaluated by a second observer (VP), instructed and calibrated, who repeated the measurements of 100 CBCTs. Both observers redefined all the points before taking the second measurement, including the landmarks for sigmoid notch and Frankfort Plane. The two examiners chose their own threshold settings. Both linear and volumetric measurements were repeated. In this way, measurement error could be estimated, as well as intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. The Dahlberg formula (d) was used to estimate error, calculating the coefficient of variation (CV) as an indicator of relative error or measuring technique. The data obtained were entered on a spreadsheet, using Microsoft Excel 2011 (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash) and transferred to the statistical software package SPSS v. 22.0 for analysis.
To analyze the agreement between the measurements of the right and left sides, the Passing Bablok regression line36 and Lin’s coefficient of agreement37 were used. The existence of differences in means was determined by the Paired t-test.
Independent t-test was used to test differences in means of linear and volumetric measurements, and asymmetry index between male and female patients. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) models were used to study independently differences involving skeletal class or vertical pattern. Tuckey test was used as post hoc test. Differences in the prevalence of relevant asymmetries (asymmetry index >3%) were estimated using the Chi-squared test.
To analyze the associations regarding asymmetry prevalence (asymmetry index with cut-off points of >1%, >3%, >6% and >10%) of linear and volumetric measurements with the independent variables (sex, skeletal class and vertical pattern), a multivariate analysis by logistic regression was conducted with the Forward Selection Method.
Level of significance α = 0.05 was set up for the analysis.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Results
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final sample consisted of 159 patients (74 males and 85 females) with a mean age of 32.32 ± 8.31 years, ranging from 24.34 to 41.21 years.
The final sample comprised the following:
-
61 patients with skeletal Class I: 29 with normal vertical pattern (10 men and 19 women); 19 with hypodivergent pattern (8 men and 11 women); and 13 with hyperdivergent pattern (3 men and 11 women). Their mean age was 33.65 ± 12.39 years.
-
54 patients with skeletal Class II: 22 with normal vertical pattern (12 men and 10 women); 16 with hypodivergent pattern (9 men and 7 women); and 16 with hyperdivergent pattern (7 men and 9 women). Their mean age was 33.13 ± 12.42 years.
-
44 patients with skeletal Class III: 14 with normal vertical pattern (8 men and 6 women); 10 with hypodivergent pattern (6 men and 4 women); and 20 with hyperdivergent pattern (11 men and 9 women). Their mean age was 29.63 ± 11.91years.
Sex distribution was found to be homogeneous, unlike vertical pattern distribution. The numbers of CBCT scans pertaining to hyperdivergent and hypodivergent patients were similar, and slightly higher than the number of patients with normal pattern.
Reproducibility results showed an intra-observer coefficient of variation (CV) of between 0.70% and 1.13%; the inter-observer CV ranged between 1.21% and 1.49. Intra and inter-observer error measurement method for d of Dahlberg fell below 0.16 mm.
No differences were found by the paired t-test in the means of condyle height, ramus height, total height and condyle volume between the right and the left side. Lin’s coefficient showed high agreement in all measurements except for condyle height, which was moderate (Table 1). The Passing Bablok regression line did not determine the existence of constant or proportional differences between sides (Fig. 3).
Linear (condylar height, ramus height, total height) and volumetric measurements (condylar volume) according to gender, skeletal class and vertical pattern are shown in Table 2. Values were significantly higher for men than for women in all measurements. Total height mean value was significantly lower for skeletal class I when compared to skeletal class III (p = 0.021). Condyle volume was significantly higher for hypodivergent than for hyperdivergent patterns (p = 0.001).
Regarding asymmetry index for both linear and volumetric measurements according to gender, skeletal class and vertical pattern (Table 3), statistically significant differences were only found for condylar volume when comparing skeletal classes, being higher for Class II (p < 0.05).
The 75.6% of the patients showed condylar volume asymmetry, and the 73.1% presented asymmetries in condylar height. The prevalence in ramus height asymmetry was 32.5%, this prevalence being 26.3% for total height.
No associations were found between the prevalence of asymmetries (linear or volumetric) and sex, skeletal class or vertical pattern (Table 4).
Table 5 shows the results of the multivariate analysis by logistic regression, where the prevalence of individuals with asymmetry at different cut-off points (>1%, >3%, >6%, >10%) was analysed. Only the association between condylar volume asymmetry >10% and hyperdivergent pattern (odds ratio = 2.65; IC-95 = 1.20–5.84) and between condylar height asymmetry >10% and skeletal class III (odds ratio = 2.88; IC-95% = 1.36–6.08) were found to be significant.
Discussion
This study provides information about CH, RH, CH + RH, CVol, linear and volumetric asymmetries in adult patients of different sex, skeletal class and vertical pattern, in order to determine whether there are differences between these groups. Establishing the differences (if any) in mandible dimensions and asymmetries between patients with different skeletal characteristics could help our understanding of the etiology of mandibular asymmetries hence establish an accurate treatment plan.
The sample was homogeneous regarding genders and skeletal classes. Only when making combinations between the variables, this homogeneity decreased. However, this was not considered a problem since the aim of the study was not to make associations between sex, skeletal class and vertical pattern variables. The only combination that exhibited heterogeneity was class I with hyperdivergent pattern (3 men and 11 women), which was not considered a limitation since the logistical regression conducted in the present study did not find significant associations between sex and the prevalence of asymmetries (Table 5).
Unlike the original study12 and other subsequent research38, the present study took measurements from CBCTs rather than panoramic radiographs in order to avoid magnification and distortion problems17, and to provide high resolution26. All the CBCTs used in this study derived from patients’ dental records, and had been taken for other purposes (implants, supernumerary teeth, third molar surgery, etc.), and not specifically for the study.
The ANB angle34 was used to determine skeletal class as in previous studies1,28,32,38. Ricketts’ XY axis angle35 was used to classify patients according to vertical pattern, unlike other studies that have used the mandibular plane28,32; this particular factor may constitute a difference between studies. The reason why the authors used Ricketts’ XY axis angle was to avoid mismatched planes resulting from mandibular plane differences between right and left sides, which could affect the measurements. Since Ricketts uses Gnation point, the authors considered this angle to be more reliable. Other studies on craniofacial structures classify the patients and make associations based on phenotypic clusters thus allowing clinical interpretation39,40. However, studies on mandibular shape and asymmetries classify patients according to vertical pattern and skeletal class like in our study, which allow more reliable comparisons between studies1,28,32,38
In the present study, the patients selected did not present any type of crossbite, as it has been shown that the mandibular structure presents significant asymmetries within crossbite groups8,10,15,17.
The mandible undergoes maximum growth months after the maximum pubertal outbreak of growth and continues for two years after the cessation of maxillary growth41. The mean age of all the patients in the present study was 32.32 years, implying that the mandible was no longer in growth, so that growth would not affect measurements.
The patients selected for this study presented full permanent dentition from the first lower molar to the first lower molar on the contralateral side, as there is a proven relation between absence of the first lower molar and vertical mandibular asymmetry1.
Patients with any kind of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) were also excluded from the study since TMD is associated with mandibular asymmetry6,14.
The study sample only included Caucasian patients in order to avoid complications arising from ethnicity. This could explain why the results may not coincide with studies that investigated Turkish28,42, Chilean38,43, Chinese44, and Japanese32 populations.
Patients with any craniofacial anomalies or syndromes such as cleft lip and palate were also excluded from this study, as these too are associated with mandibular asymmetry16,17,18.
In this type of study, the accuracy and reliability of the imaging software used could be an important factor affecting the results. The present study used InVivoDental® software, unlike other investigations that have used Visualization Toolkit package, MIRIT, Matlab FastRBF Toolbox, Ortho Pro 2.0 software45, Simplant OMS46, MimicsTM29,30,44, Simplant Pro version 13.028, Analyze32.
Intra- and inter-observer error was low and so reproducibility was high, the coefficient of variation value (CV) and the Dahlberg d-value being very low.
Even though differences between right and left sides were found, they were not statistically significant, a finding that concurs with the results of other studies1,8,28,47. It should be noted that, unlike the present study, some studies have used panoramic radiographs, and included patients with crossbite and mandibular shifting, factors that could affect the results1,28. Although differences were not significant, a high percentage of patients presented relevant linear asymmetries, condyle height asymmetry being particularly prevalent. The present study also found a high prevalence of volumetric asymmetry, although differences did not reach statistical significance. These results differ from others44,45. The differences could be due to the different inclusion criteria applied in the latter studies, in which these authors44 used a sample of patients diagnosed with mandibular asymmetry, and analyzed patients in mixed dentition45.
Linear measurements were found to be higher among men than women, with greater difference in the ramus. These differences were statistically significant, a finding that partly agrees with Saglam study42 which found significant differences in the total asymmetry index between men and women. Contrarily to our results, other studies did not find significant differences1,2,10,18,21,47.
In the present study, Class III patients showed higher linear measurement values, while other researchers have found the mandibular vertical dimension to be higher among Class II patients38,48. Regarding asymmetries in the different skeletal classes, Class III patients showed greater condylar asymmetries, while greater ramus asymmetries were found among Class II patients, although these differences were not statistically significant. Kasimoglu et al.47 also analyzed these differences, and like the present results did not find statistically significant differences. However, Saglam42 did find significant differences in total vertical asymmetry between skeletal classes. As for condylar volume, the present study found significant differences in asymmetry index between skeletal classes, which was higher for Class II patients, this finding being in contrast with Nakawaki et al. study which did not find significant differences among skeletal classes32. This disagreement may be owed to the ethnic differences between the samples, since their study uses a sample of Japanese patients unlike our study.
Hyperdivergent patients showed lower linear values, although without statistically significant differences. These results agree with Celik et al., who conducted a similar study to the present one, although the patient sample was smaller28. Hyperdivergent patients showed higher rates of asymmetry compared with the other groups, again without statistically significant differences; these results are in agreement with Celik et al.28. Significant differences in condylar volume were found between different vertical patterns. In this regard, our results agree with Nakawaki et al.32, who did find significant differences between hyperdivergent and hypodivergent patients, whereby the hypodivergent group presented higher volumes.
By applying a multivariate analysis with logistic regression, the present study aimed to analyse the associations between different grades of asymmetry and the other studied parameters. Other authors have used different statistical tools such as geometric morphometric analysis to study asymmetries49
The present study suffered certain limitations. Firstly, the method described by Habets et al12. does not delimit the condylar head accurately, so condyle height measurement is an estimation of its length based on the location of cephalometric points. Secondly, although measurements taken from CBCTs are accurate, volume measurements may be subject to variations resulting from varying bone densities, which can affect the segmentation process50. Some 3D computational shape analysis methods are nowadays available to accurately assess anatomical aspects of the craniofacial complex49,51. These methods also allow to make precise superimpositions of the structures after performing semi-automated segmentation, thus asymmetries can be quantified52,53. De Dumast et al. have recently described the Shape Variation Analyzer, which consists in an interesting tool for this matter54. Further research would be interesting to analyze whether there are differences in means of results between the method used in the present study and the modern 3D segmentation analyses.
Despite selecting patients without any craniofacial anomalies, previous trauma, crossbite, mandibular shifting, or any kind of TMD, the present study found a high prevalence of relevant asymmetry within the sample, which points to the importance of assessing asymmetries during diagnosis in order to ensure accurate and comprehensive treatment planning.
Conclusions
Greater height and volume values were found among men, Class III, and hypodivergent patients. Linear and volumetric asymmetries were more prevalent among men, Class III and hyperdivergent patterns. Significant associations were found between condylar volume asymmetries >10% and hyperdivergent pattern, and between condylar height asymmetries >10% and skeletal class III.
References
Halicioglu, K., Celikoglu, M., Buyuk, S. K., Sekerci, A. E. & Candirli, C. Effects of early unilateral mandibular first molar extraction on condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry. Eur J Dent. 8, 178–83 (2014).
Laspos, C. P., Kyrkanides, S., Tallents, R. H., Moss, M. E. & Subtelny, J. D. Mandibular and maxillary asymmetry in individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 3, 232–9 (1997).
Edler, R., Wertheim, D. & Greenhill, D. Clinical and computerized assessment of mandibular asymmetry. Eur J Orthod. 23, 485–94 (2001).
Edler, R., Wertheim, D. & Greenhill, D. Comparison of radiographic and photographic measurement of mandibular asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 123, 167–74 (2003).
Trpkova, B., Major, P., Nebbe, B. & Prasad, N. Craniofacial asymmetry and temporomandibular joint internal derangement in female adolescents: a posteroanterior cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 70, 81–8 (2000).
Choi, J. Y., Hwang, J. M. & Baek, S. H. Virtual model surgery and wafer fabrication using 2-dimensional cephalograms, 3-dimensional virtual dental models, and stereolithographic technology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 113, 193–200 (2012).
Rose, J. M., Sadowsky, C., BeGole, E. A. & Moles, R. Mandibular skeletal and dental asymmetry in Class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 105, 489–95 (1994).
Kiki, A., Kilic, N. & Oktay, H. Condylar asymmetry in bilateral posterior crossbite patients. Angle Orthodontist. 77, 77–81 (2007).
Van Elslande, D. C., Russett, S. J., Major, P. W. & Flores-Mir, C. Mandibular asymmetry diagnosis with panoramic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 34, 183–92 (2008).
Uysal, T., Sisman, Y., Kurt, G. & Ramoglu, S. I. Condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry in unilateral and bilateral posterior crossbite patients and a normal occlusion sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 136, 37–43 (2009).
Laster, W. S., Ludlow, J. B., Bailey, L. J. & Hershey, H. G. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy and prediction of asymmetry in panoramic radiographic images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 34, 343–9 (2005).
Habets, L., Bezuur, J. N., Naeiji, M. & Hansson, T. L. The orthopantomogram, an aid in diagnosis of temporomandibular joint problems. II. The vertical symmetry. J Oral Rehabil. 15, 465–71 (1988).
Kjellberg, H., Ekestubbe, A., Kiliaridis, S. & Thilander, B. Condylar height on panoramic radiographs a methodology study with a clinical application. Acta Odontol Scand. 52, 43–50 (1994).
D’Ippolito, S., Ursini, R., Giuliante, L. & Deli, R. Correlations between mandibular asymmetries and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Int Orthod. 12, 222–38 (2014).
Kilic, N., Kiki, A. & Oktay, H. Condylar asymmetry in unilateral posterior crossbite patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 133, 382–7 (2008).
Kurt, G., Bayram, M., Uysal, T. & Ozer, M. Mandibular asymmetry in cleft lip and palate patients. Eur J Orthod. 32, 19–23 (2009).
Veli, I., Uysal, T., Ozer, T., Ucar, F. I. & Eruz, M. Mandibular asymmetry in unilateral and bilateral posterior crossbite patients using cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 81, 966–74 (2011).
Celikoglu, M., Halicioglu, K., Buyuk, S. K., Sekerci, A. E. & Ucar, F. I. Condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry in adolescent patients with cleft lip and palate evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 144, 691–7 (2013).
Maglione, H. O., de Zavaleta, L. A., Laraudo, J., Falisi, G. & Fernandez, F. Temporomandibular dysfunction: internal derangement associated with facial and/or mandibular asymmetry. Cranio. 31, 276–82 (2013).
Azevedo, A. R. P., Janson, G., Henriques, J. F. C. & de Freitas, M. R. Evaluation of asymmetries between subjects with Class II subdivision and apparent facial asymmetry and those with normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 129, 376–83 (2006).
Sezgin, O. S., Celenk, P. & Aric, S. Mandibular asymmetry in different occlusion patterns - A radiological evaluation. Angle Orthod. 77, 803–7 (2007).
Kurt, G., Uysal, T., Sisman, Y. & Ramoglu, S. I. Mandibular asymmetry in Class II subdivision malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 78, 32–7 (2008).
Batenburg, R. H., Stellingsma, K., Raghoebar, G. M. & Vissink, A. Bone height measurements on panoramic radiographs: the effect of shape and position of edentulous mandibles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 84, 430–5 (1997).
Leung, C. C., Palomo, L., Griffith, R. & Hans, M. G. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 137, S109–19 (2010).
García-Sanz, V. et al. Accuracy and reliability of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for linear and volumetric mandibular condyle measurements. A human cadaver study. Sci Rep. 7, 11993 (2017).
Kumar, V., Ludlow, J., Soares Cevidanes, L. H. & Mol, A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod. 78, 873–9 (2008).
Lim, Y. S., Chung, D. H., Lee, J. W. & Lee, S. M. Reliability and validity of mandibular posterior vertical asymmetry index in panoramic radiography compared with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 153, 558–567 (2018).
Celik, S., Celikoglu, M., Buyuk, S. K. & Sekerci, A. E. Mandibular vertical asymmetry in adult orthodontic patients with different vertical growth patterns: A cone beam computed tomography study. Angle Orthod. 86, 271–7 (2016).
Tecco, S. et al. Condylar volume and surface in Caucasian young adult subjects. BMC Med Imaging. 10, 28 (2010).
Saccucci, M., Polimeni, A., Festa, F. & Tecco, S. Do skeletal cephalometric characteristics correlate with condylar volume, surface and shape? A 3D analysis. Head Face Med. 8, 15 (2012).
González, M. F., Pedersen, T. K., Dalstra, M., Herlin, T. & Verna, C. 3D evaluation of mandibular skeletal changes in juvenile arthritis patients treated with a distraction splint: A retrospective follow-up. Angle Orthod. 86, 846–53 (2016).
Nakawaki, T. et al. Evaluation of mandibular volume classified by vertical skeletal dimensions with cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 86, 949–54 (2016).
Von Elm, E. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 12, 495–9 (2014).
Steiner, C. C. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 39, 729 (1953).
Ricketts, R. M. Cephalometric synthesis. Angle Orthod. 31, 141–56 (1961).
Passing, H. & Bablok, W. A New Biometrical Procedure for Testing the Equality of Measurements from Two Different Analytical Methods. Application of Linear Regression Procedures for Method Comparison Studies in Clinical Chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 21, 709–720 (1983).
Lin, L. I. A Concordance Correlation Coefficient to Evaluate Reproducibility. Biometrics 45, 255–268 (1989).
Fuentes, R., Silva, H., Sandoval, P., Cuevas, F. & Rodriguez, M. Height of the condilar process in different esqueletal class who require orthodontic treatment/Altura del proceso condilar en pacientes con diferentes clases esqueletales que requieren tratamiento de ortodoncia. Int J Morphol. 24, 499–504 (2006).
Moreno Uribe, L. M., Vela, K. C., Kummet, C., Dawson, D. V. & Southard, T. E. Phenotypic diversity in white adults with moderate to severe Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 144, 32–42 (2013).
Moreno Uribe, L. M., Ray, A., Blanchette, D. R., Dawson, D. V. & Southard, T. E. Phenotype-genotype correlations of facial width and height proportions in patients with Class II malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res. Suppl 1, 100–8 (2015).
Björk, A. & Helm, S. Prediction of the age of maximum puberal growth in body height. Angle Orthod. 37, 134–43 (1967).
Saglam, A. M. The condylar asymmetry measurements in different skeletal patterns. J Oral Rehabil. 30, 738–42 (2003).
Iturriaga, V., Navarro, P., Cantin, M. & Fuentes, R. Prevalence of vertical condilar asymmetry of the temporomandibular joint in patients with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. Int J Morphol. 30, 315–21 (2012).
Lin, H. et al. Mandibular asymmetry: a three-dimensional quantification of bilateral condyles. Head Face Med. 9, 42 (2013).
Huntjens, E., Kiss, G., Wouters, C. & Carels, C. Condylar asymmetry in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis assessed by cone-beam computed tomography. Eur J Orthod. 30, 545–51 (2008).
Kim, J. Y., Kim, B. J., Park, K. H. & Huh, J. K. Comparison of volume and position of the temporomandibular joint structures in patients with mandibular asymmetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 122, 772–80 (2016).
Kasimoglu, Y., Tuna, E. B., Rahimi, B., Marsan, G. & Gencay, K. Condylar asymmetry in different occlusion types. Cranio. 33, 10–4 (2015).
Al Taki, A., Ahmed, M. H., Ghani, H. A. & Al Kaddah, F. Impact of different malocclusion types on the vertical mandibular asymmetry in young adult sample. Eur J Dent. 9, 373 (2015).
Hatch, C. D., Wehby, G. L., Nidey, N. L. & Moreno Uribe, L. M. Effects of Objective 3-Dimensional Measures of Facial Shape and Symmetry on Perceptions of Facial Attractiveness. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 75, 1958–1970 (2017).
Engelbrecht, W. P., Fourie, Z., Damstra, J., Gerrits, P. O. & Ren, Y. The influence of the segmentation process on 3D measurements from cone beam computed tomography-derived surface models. Clin Oral Investig. 17, 1919–27 (2013).
Souki, B. Q. et al. Three-dimensional skeletal mandibular changes associated with Herbst appliance treatment. Orthod Craniofac Res. 20, 111–118 (2017).
Nguyen, T., Cevidanes, L., Franchi, L., Ruellas, A. & Jackson, T. Three-dimensional mandibular regional superimposition in growing patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 153, 747–754 (2018).
Yushkevich, P. A. et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage. 31, 1116–28 (2006).
de Dumast, P. et al. SVA: Shape variation analyzer. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 10578 (2018).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank William James Packer, professional English language editor, for translating the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study: L.V.M. and V.P.G. recruited participants, collected data, and collated medical records; C.B.A. and J.M.M.C. performed data synthesis, carried out the statistical analysis, while V.G.S. and J.M.A.S. prepared the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mendoza, L.V., Bellot-Arcís, C., Montiel-Company, J.M. et al. Linear and Volumetric Mandibular Asymmetries in Adult Patients With Different Skeletal Classes and Vertical Patterns: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study. Sci Rep 8, 12319 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30270-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30270-7
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Facial asymmetry of the hard and soft tissues in skeletal Class I, II, and III patients
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Three-dimensional mandibular characteristics in skeletal malocclusion
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie (2024)
-
Tridimensional assessment of the mandibular angle in patients with different skeletal patterns by cone-beam computed tomography scans: a retrospective study
BMC Oral Health (2023)
-
3-dimensional analysis of hard- and soft-tissue symmetry in a Chinese population
BMC Oral Health (2023)
-
Three-dimensional quantification of mandibular asymmetries in Caucasian adult patients with different sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. A cone beam study using 3D segmentation and mirroring procedures
Head & Face Medicine (2023)